fa2b083c3f [test] Add test to check mempool consistency in case of reorgs (MarcoFalke)
fabeb1f613 validation: Add missing mempool locks (MarcoFalke)
fa0c9dbf91 txpool: Make nTransactionsUpdated atomic (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Take the mempool read lock during reorgs, so that we don't accidentally read an inconsistent mempool.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
code review ACK fa2b083c3f
ryanofsky:
utACK fa2b083c3f [EDIT: was ~e284e422e75189794e24fe482819d8b1407857c3~, from bad copy and paste]. Changes since last review: rebase after #15976, adding vTxHashes lock annotation, adding new commit dropping mempool lock for nTransactionsUpdated and making it atomic to avoid deadlock between mempool lock and g_best_block_mutex
Tree-SHA512: cfe7777993589087753e000e3736d79d320dca412383fb77b56bef8946a04049722bf888c11b6f722adf677165185c7e58b4a269f7c5fa25e84dda375f6c8a7d
Though at the moment ChainActive() simply references `g_chainstate.m_chain`,
doing this change now clears the way for multiple chainstate usage and allows
us to script the diff.
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
git grep -l "chainActive" | grep -E '(h|cpp)$' | xargs sed -i '/chainActive =/b; /extern CChain& chainActive/b; s/\(::\)\{0,1\}chainActive/::ChainActive()/g'
-END VERIFY SCRIPT-
d2ce315fbf [docs] add release note for change to GBT (John Newbery)
0025c9eae4 [mining] segwit option must be set in GBT (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
Calling getblocktemplate without the segwit rule specified is most
likely a client error, since it results in lower fees for the miner.
Prevent this client error by failing getblocktemplate if called without
the segwit rule specified.
Of the previous 1000 blocks (measured at block [551591 (hash 0x...173c811)](https://blockstream.info/block/000000000000000000173c811e79858808abc3216af607035973f002bef60a7a)), 991 included segwit transactions.
Tree-SHA512: 7933b073d72683c9ab9318db46a085ec19a56a14937945c73f783ac7656887619a86b74db0bdfcb8121df44f63a1d6a6fb19e98505b2a26a6a8a6e768e442fee
c84c2b8c92 tests: Test for expected return values when calling functions returning a success code (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Test for expected return values when calling functions returning a success code (instead of discarding the return values).
**Note to reviewers:** The following commands can be used to verify that the only text fragments added in this PR are `BOOST_CHECK(`, `!` and `)` :
```
$ git diff HEAD~1 | grep -E '^[\-][^\-]' | cut -b2- > before.txt
$ git diff HEAD~1 | grep -E '^[\+][^\+]' | cut -b2- > after.txt
$ cat after.txt | sed 's/BOOST_CHECK(//g' | sed 's/));/);/g' | tr -d '!' > after-sed.txt
$ diff -u before.txt after-sed.txt
$
```
Tree-SHA512: ff0863ef2046a2eda3c44e9c6b9aedfe167881f2fa58db29fef859416831233ef6502a3a11fd2322bc1a924db83df8d4a5c5879298007f2a7b085e2a7286af70
Calling getblocktemplate without the segwit rule specified is most
likely a client error, since it results in lower fees for the miner.
Prevent this client error by failing getblocktemplate if called without
the segwit rule specified.
This trivial change adds the "override" keyword to some methods of
subclasses meant to override interface methods. This ensures that any
future change to the interface' method signatures which are not correctly
mirrored in the subclass will break at compile time with a clear error message,
rather than fail at runtime (which is harder to debug).
After a recent bug discovered in callback ordering in MainSignals,
this test checks invariants in ordering of
BlockConnected / BlockDisconnected / UpdatedChainTip signals
